Smoking ban violators owe $2M in unpaid fines

Smoke'em if you got'em . I do, and will as long as I want to. Nothing anyone says or does will change that.
Many states allow it. I went on a trip recently and stopped at a little restaurant and to my surprise they had ashtrays and if you wanted to smoke, you could. Take that non smokers. They have a striving full business and have had for many years.

paw wrote:

Smoke'em if you got'em . I do, and will as long as I want to. Nothing anyone says or does will change that.
Many states allow it. I went on a trip recently and stopped at a little restaurant and to my surprise they had ashtrays and if you wanted to smoke, you could. Take that non smokers. They have a striving full business and have had for many years.

Ah, and it isn't at all telling that such an establishment is cause for comment.

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, and it isn't at all telling that such an establishment is cause for comment.

Yes, for people like you. Like it or not many people smoke. It was nice to see a place of business aware of this too.
Smoke em if you got em. LOL.

I hope they never collect the money too. Just wanted to add that little tidbit.

Smokers Stink wrote:

<quoted text>
How bout when the doctor says you got less that a year to stink?

I guess you mean a year to live....If that ever happens it will be my problem, not yours. P.S. I do not stink. Never have, never will. MYOB.

Smokers Stinkola wrote:

<quoted text>
You just can't smell it on yourself. You stink, and there is NO DOUBT about that.

YES there is a lot of doubt. WHATEVER. Think what you want, but I would bet you are stinky without smoking, lol. I would win that one stinky. Stinkola is a good name for you.

I'm a non-smoker, 6 other people work with me. 1 smokes. My office is down the hall and around the corner from our little stinker. the hall is about 25' from the front door. I can smell him when he walks in (within about 20 seconds and he isn't allowed to smoke in the office) yes smokers you do stink, like it or not, you can deny it all you want but that just shows how stupid you are....you stink, your clothes stink, your cars stink, your homes stink and the people that live with you stink, sorry to let you in on the big secret. Saying you can smoke without smelling is like saying you can roll in dog crap and not get the smell on you... this is why your car is worth 25%less than a non smokers car in the same condition. this is why your homes are harder to sell (my brother is a real estate agent) typically $5K-$10K lower and they stay on the market 3-5 times longer, it's because you smell bad
.

Smokers like the poster "paw" are nothing, but addicts in denial...they believe that just because they find one establishment willing to break the law in order to cater to this small demographic of chemical addicts, that everyone must be supportive of this obnoxiously rude, vile and toxic activity!

The truth of the matter is, PAW IS EXACTLY RIGHT when saying "its my problem not yours"...it is your problem, it is your habit, it is your stench....keep it to yourself!
You have NO RIGHT to impose your habit on anyone else!

The bans are overwhelmingly appreciated and supported by the majority of citizens, regardless of what a few hard headed chemically dependent addicts in denial believe!

Where paw says "smoke em if you got em"...I don't think so bubba, you are in denial about the fact that the majority of states have statewide bans!

If you think you want to try and violate the ban in places that have a ban, I think you would find that you are sadly mistaken in your plight, and further if you believe that the fines are not going to be collected without ramifications...again you are confused, in denial, or just plain live in fantasy-land.

TruthBeTold wrote:

Smokers like the poster "paw" are nothing, but addicts in denial...they believe that just because they find one establishment willing to break the law in order to cater to this small demographic of chemical addicts, that everyone must be supportive of this obnoxiously rude, vile and toxic activity!
The truth of the matter is, PAW IS EXACTLY RIGHT when saying "its my problem not yours"...it is your problem, it is your habit, it is your stench....keep it to yourself!
You have NO RIGHT to impose your habit on anyone else!
The bans are overwhelmingly appreciated and supported by the majority of citizens, regardless of what a few hard headed chemically dependent addicts in denial believe!
Where paw says "smoke em if you got em"...I don't think so bubba, you are in denial about the fact that the majority of states have statewide bans!
If you think you want to try and violate the ban in places that have a ban, I think you would find that you are sadly mistaken in your plight, and further if you believe that the fines are not going to be collected without ramifications...again you are confused, in denial, or just plain live in fantasy-land.

It all goes by what a court rules. How does one enforce a smoking ban? You call 1-800-GOV-RULE, and based on what you say, the business should get fined? What if I called the cops and stated you threw a candy wrapper on the ground? Would they give you a $500.00 littering fine because of what I told them?

Earlier last year, the court ruled in favor of those who challenged the fines because Constitutionally, the business owner is not required by law to enforce state regulations. That's up to the state to do. If I light up a cigarette in a bar, then I'm the one who broke the law--not the business owner. The only thing the business owner is required to do is place signs on the wall stating smoking is prohibited.

Many of these fines were leveled based on consumer complaints. This means if I got a bad meal at a restaurant, or got kicked out of the bar because I got too drunk, all I have to do is call that stupid 1-800 number and tell them people were smoking in the business, and they get fined. Of course they shouldn't pay them.

It's a real shame what's happened to this country and the nanny state government supporters. Let government solve all my woes even when it comes to recreation. But as leaders of the Communist party predicted many years ago, they won't have to take over our country or go to war with us to strip our freedoms away; we will do it ourselves from within. That's why 40 years ago, you couldn't compare our liberties to dictator or Communist countries. Today you can.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
It all goes by what a court rules. How does one enforce a smoking ban? You call 1-800-GOV-RULE, and based on what you say, the business should get fined? What if I called the cops and stated you threw a candy wrapper on the ground? Would they give you a $500.00 littering fine because of what I told them?
Earlier last year, the court ruled in favor of those who challenged the fines because Constitutionally, the business owner is not required by law to enforce state regulations. That's up to the state to do. If I light up a cigarette in a bar, then I'm the one who broke the law--not the business owner. The only thing the business owner is required to do is place signs on the wall stating smoking is prohibited.
Many of these fines were leveled based on consumer complaints. This means if I got a bad meal at a restaurant, or got kicked out of the bar because I got too drunk, all I have to do is call that stupid 1-800 number and tell them people were smoking in the business, and they get fined. Of course they shouldn't pay them.

Look at the video of the Supreme Court testimony for the Zeno's challenge. Your argument about fines stemming from customer complaints is clearly refuted there. Complaints were necessary in order for an investigator to go take a look, and THAT was necessary before the fines were assessed.

Of course, a little thing like truth shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of your proclamations, now, should it?

stinkers wrote:

I'm a non-smoker, 6 other people work with me. 1 smokes. My office is down the hall and around the corner from our little stinker. the hall is about 25' from the front door. I can smell him when he walks in (within about 20 seconds and he isn't allowed to smoke in the office) yes smokers you do stink, like it or not, you can deny it all you want but that just shows how stupid you are....you stink, your clothes stink, your cars stink, your homes stink and the people that live with you stink, sorry to let you in on the big secret. Saying you can smoke without smelling is like saying you can roll in dog crap and not get the smell on you... this is why your car is worth 25%less than a non smokers car in the same condition. this is why your homes are harder to sell (my brother is a real estate agent) typically $5K-$10K lower and they stay on the market 3-5 times longer, it's because you smell bad
.

So you think you are right. LOL. People like you amaze me, you think you know it all when you know nothing.
Once again I will tell you I hope they do not collect a penny and I am sure they will not.
I will light up anytime I get the urge and I hope you are around so I can blow the smoke your way.
You sit and judge and I bet you wear stinky perfume the kind that give people a headache and you live in a non-smoking filthy house that I would not allow my dog to live in, and you judge smokers.
So sorry to inform you but your in law knows very little also. I just sold my home that was immaculate for a tidy profit, and low and behold, the house did not stink or smell of smoke. BTW, my house sold really fast too.
Yes I lived in it for 15 years. Even the carpet was spotless. So I hate to bust your bubble but you are not right.
My money is in the bank. PROOF and fact not just words on topix.

To the other non smokers who think they know it all. If you all knew half as much as you think you do the world would be a better place.
I used to be more respectful to non smokers but hearing some of you that is over.

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at the video of the Supreme Court testimony for the Zeno's challenge. Your argument about fines stemming from customer complaints is clearly refuted there. Complaints were necessary in order for an investigator to go take a look, and THAT was necessary before the fines were assessed.
Of course, a little thing like truth shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of your proclamations, now, should it?

Great. Post a link and I'll take a look at it. You Tube had nothing on Zeno and the Ohio SC. I can tell you this: the owner of my local bar was fined six times, no agent involved. So I printed out a copy of the Ohio Supreme Courts decision (about a year ago) and showed him they ruled that the owners of an establishment are not responsible for enforcing the smoking ban. Did that change in the last year or so? I don't know. I didn't follow it.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Great. Post a link and I'll take a look at it. You Tube had nothing on Zeno and the Ohio SC. I can tell you this: the owner of my local bar was fined six times, no agent involved. So I printed out a copy of the Ohio Supreme Courts decision (about a year ago) and showed him they ruled that the owners of an establishment are not responsible for enforcing the smoking ban. Did that change in the last year or so? I don't know. I didn't follow it.

Back in October there was, of course, a lot of discussion on the thread:Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme Court.

Right around this page the discussion actually started to re-focus on the actual topic of the thread:

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/TC2...

There were several posts with links to the video, and several that provided large chunks of quoted text from the hearing.

You might find some useful insight amidst the bickering in that chunk of thread. Here, though, is a link to the video itself:

http://www.supremecourtofohiomedialibrary.org...

The court has not yet published its decision, as far as I know.

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
Back in October there was, of course, a lot of discussion on the thread:Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme Court.
Right around this page the discussion actually started to re-focus on the actual topic of the thread:
http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/TC2...
There were several posts with links to the video, and several that provided large chunks of quoted text from the hearing.
You might find some useful insight amidst the bickering in that chunk of thread. Here, though, is a link to the video itself:
http://www.supremecourtofohiomedialibrary.org...
The court has not yet published its decision, as far as I know.

Thanks for the link, I've never seen it before.

It seems to me that a case was made for Equal Protection Under the Law, although it was not presented that way. If smokers learn of an establishment nearby their usual water hole that for whatever reason is granted a right to allow their customers to smoke, that gives those clubs and bars an unfair advantage over their competition. I can't see how a court can ignore that protection, especially when the establishment is on record for losing a lot of money because of this law and exemptions.

A few years ago, my city created a list of laws for us landlords. They started to do interior inspections of all rental units and wanted re-inspections ever three years whether the unit was occupied or not. I later found out that apartment buildings were exempt from these laws. I contacted my Councilman and threatened a lawsuit against the city for a violation of my Constitutional right of Equal Protection Under the law. I protested that these inspections are time consuming, expensive and invasive which is uninviting to tenants. The city backed down and began inspecting apartment buildings using the same criteria that they used for us landlords with multi-family homes. They knew they had no case.

So I don't see a case here either. That woman representing the State made a boo-boo as well. First she testified that the reason NO patrons were ever fined was because agents have never witnessed a patron violating the law. Then she later said that with the ten other fines, State agents went into Zeno's and DID observe people smoking and the owner not saying a word to them. If they witnessed these customers smoking, why did those State agents not fine the individuals?

I may be biased here, but I can't see how an honest court can rule in favor of the state. There are too may holes in this smoking ban.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the link, I've never seen it before.
It seems to me that a case was made for Equal Protection Under the Law, although it was not presented that way. If smokers learn of an establishment nearby their usual water hole that for whatever reason is granted a right to allow their customers to smoke, that gives those clubs and bars an unfair advantage over their competition. I can't see how a court can ignore that protection, especially when the establishment is on record for losing a lot of money because of this law and exemptions.

What can a person say to that except: HUH?

The case presented by the Zeno's side rested on the pretense of having a couple of points. One was their claim that Zeno's should not be covered by the law because it is on a corner and has no way to set up a patio for outdoor smoking.

The other was their claim that the law shouldn't be permitted to exist because (they said) it couldn't be regarded as protective of health if there were ANY exceptions to it.

xxxrayted wrote:

A few years ago, my city created a list of laws for us landlords. They started to do interior inspections of all rental units and wanted re-inspections ever three years whether the unit was occupied or not. I later found out that apartment buildings were exempt from these laws. I contacted my Councilman and threatened a lawsuit against the city for a violation of my Constitutional right of Equal Protection Under the law. I protested that these inspections are time consuming, expensive and invasive which is uninviting to tenants. The city backed down and began inspecting apartment buildings using the same criteria that they used for us landlords with multi-family homes. They knew they had no case.
So I don't see a case here either.

This is extravagantly reaching for comparison that just isn't there. If the Zeno's team were demanding that other establishments be stripped of their exemptions, it MIGHT be similar. They were only arguing that THEY should be exempt as well.

As to your anecdotal bit, I don't see how the city did anything but become more aggressive by extending the scope of their requirements. How did that change YOUR situation outside of the "misery loves company" aspect?

xxxrayted wrote:

That woman representing the State made a boo-boo as well. First she testified that the reason NO patrons were ever fined was because agents have never witnessed a patron violating the law. Then she later said that with the ten other fines, State agents went into Zeno's and DID observe people smoking and the owner not saying a word to them. If they witnessed these customers smoking, why did those State agents not fine the individuals?

I'd suggest listening again. I went to too much trouble tracking that link down to accept that you were this far from understanding it.

The state responded to COMPLAINTS by sending inspectors to investigate the COMPLAINTS. There were no COMPLAINTS filed against individuals who were smoking. THAT is why (she said) they were not citing individuals. There is, of course, a logistical issue with the short length of time an individual is smoking as compared to the length of time it takes to complain and have an inspector come around.

I like to pee in my neighbors flower pots. That way he can,t smell my smoke!

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
What can a person say to that except: HUH?
The case presented by the Zeno's side rested on the pretense of having a couple of points. One was their claim that Zeno's should not be covered by the law because it is on a corner and has no way to set up a patio for outdoor smoking.
The other was their claim that the law shouldn't be permitted to exist because (they said) it couldn't be regarded as protective of health if there were ANY exceptions to it.
<quoted text>
This is extravagantly reaching for comparison that just isn't there. If the Zeno's team were demanding that other establishments be stripped of their exemptions, it MIGHT be similar. They were only arguing that THEY should be exempt as well.
As to your anecdotal bit, I don't see how the city did anything but become more aggressive by extending the scope of their requirements. How did that change YOUR situation outside of the "misery loves company" aspect?
<quoted text>
I'd suggest listening again. I went to too much trouble tracking that link down to accept that you were this far from understanding it.
The state responded to COMPLAINTS by sending inspectors to investigate the COMPLAINTS. There were no COMPLAINTS filed against individuals who were smoking. THAT is why (she said) they were not citing individuals. There is, of course, a logistical issue with the short length of time an individual is smoking as compared to the length of time it takes to complain and have an inspector come around.

There were several issues that were presented, but the Constitutional violation of Equal Protection is the one that struck me the most. They also made the case that nobody is allowed in the establishment under the age of 21 which means there are never any children in the bar. They also stated that because the bar has a preexisting condition of smoking as a way to attract business, they should be exempt as well, but I don't see anything in the Ohio Constitution that would support that.

What the state representative did was goof up. Sure, nobody called in about a certain person, but if agents were actually in the bar at the time a patron was smoking, then they didn't do their job by fining the patron. The point here is, I don't believe there were any agents in the bar, and if there were, have no evidence that smoking took place. As the video points out 33,000 fines were leveled against establishment owners, and not one to a patron who was actually breaking the law. Do you really believe that State agents actually went to problem establishments 33,000 times??????

If so, then it goes to show what a waste of money and time this is. Our government workers could be concentrating on much more serious issues that face this state instead of people smoking in a bar.

As for my city, yes, it did help me that we all live by the same set of rules. In the past, I've had tenants move out at the end of the month, and had new ones move in the next day. Now I can't even rent an apartment until the city gets done with their stupid inspection. That's a mont(s) rent I lose. The unit has to remain empty until two inspections are done: the first one to inspect, and the second one to re-inspect since they always find something to cite you on. This takes time and money. I don't do this for a living. I have a full time job and don't have time to keep taking off of work to accommodate these idiotic inspectors.

Besides that, I'm an American, and I demand my Constitutional rights. My original intent was for the city to stop all interior inspections which I assumed they would do because they didn't want to fight big apartment lawyers and lose. They chose to take that chance.

I do smoke. I love it and hate it at the same time but I have a huge problem with government implementing rules for us horrible, nasty, vial smokers. All the while living off of and enjoying every penny We spend on cigarettes! How about ban them all together? They would never do that because the pay offs from the lobbyists $$$$ is benefiting them. So If you none smokers out there wanna do something constructive instead of bashing the smokers how about you all have a fit with the government that allows the tobacco companies to increase nicotine and thousands of carcinogens that keep us hooked and make us sick!!

Wondering_Wondering wrote:

I do smoke. I love it and hate it at the same time but I have a huge problem with government implementing rules for us horrible, nasty, vial smokers. All the while living off of and enjoying every penny We spend on cigarettes! How about ban them all together? They would never do that because the pay offs from the lobbyists $$$$ is benefiting them. So If you none smokers out there wanna do something constructive instead of bashing the smokers how about you all have a fit with the government that allows the tobacco companies to increase nicotine and thousands of carcinogens that keep us hooked and make us sick!!

I hope you don't mind me saying, but the smoking ban is a smoke screen.

What we are battling against are the cradle to graver government dependents. Government should make (whatever it is) right for them. But when government gives rights to one set of people, it has to take rights from another group of people.

The bigger issue is this: we now have government conducting private business. This is dangerous in a free country. If government can ban smoking in a bar, then what's the next step? Banning rock-n-roll music? The volume of the music since it may damage your hearing? The food (which is already being done with trans-fats and salt) they are allowed to serve? How much lighting must be in place? Where does it stop?

I understand that non-smokers don't like the smell of smoke. But going to a bar or restaurant is not a necessity of life or liberty in the United States. It's optional. If smoking bothered non-smokers to the point they would not patron bars and restaurants, these businesses would optionally restrict smoking in their establishments which is the way it should be. And while smoking does bother these people, it does not bother them enough to stop going to these places. So why the smoking ban? To accommodate their comfort level--not their health.

xxxrayted wrote:

What the state representative did was goof up. Sure, nobody called in about a certain person, but if agents were actually in the bar at the time a patron was smoking, then they didn't do their job by fining the patron.

No complaint, no right to cite. Their job is to validate complaints. No complaints against individuals? Nothing to validate.

xxxrayted wrote:

The point here is, I don't believe there were any agents in the bar, and if there were, have no evidence that smoking took place. As the video points out 33,000 fines were leveled against establishment owners, and not one to a patron who was actually breaking the law. Do you really believe that State agents actually went to problem establishments 33,000 times?

According to the records cited by the article this thread is based on, there were just over 1700 inspections in a handful of places:

"In Butler County, the state has conducted nearly 820 investigations...

"The Hamilton Health Department has conducted 294 investigations...

"In Middletown, 300 cases have been investigated...

"In Warren County, zero businesses exceeded four fines out of more than 350 investigations..."